2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "BC Human Rights Code (6:III)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
BC Human Rights Code (6:III) (view source)
Revision as of 21:25, 20 December 2022
, 21:25, 20 December 2022→6. Discrimination in Employment and the Duty to Accommodate
| Line 304: | Line 304: | ||
For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html?resultIndex=1 Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 [''Kerr'']. | For a specific example of a BCHRT case that applies the BFOR test in a disability context, please refer to ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bchrt/doc/2009/2009bchrt196/2009bchrt196.html?resultIndex=1 Kerr v Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd (No 4)]'', 2009 BCHRT 196 [''Kerr'']. | ||
'''Undue Hardship''': What may be considered “undue hardship” varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 985—986, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include financial cost, health and safety, and flexibility and size of the workplace. The burden of proving an undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s ''Legal Information'' page at | '''Undue Hardship''': What may be considered “undue hardship” varies by employer and depends on the circumstances. In ''[https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/910/index.do Central Okanagan School District No 23 v Renaud]'', [1992] 2 SCR 970 at 985—986, the Supreme Court of Canada held that an undue hardship is more than a minor inconvenience and that actual interference with the employer’s business must be established. Factors the court may consider include financial cost, health and safety, and flexibility and size of the workplace. The burden of proving an undue hardship lies on the respondent and will require evidence that all reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, have been provided. For more information on the duty to accommodate, please see the BC Human Rights Clinic’s ''Legal Information'' page at https://bchrc.net/legal-information/do-i-have-a-complaint and their blog at https://bchrc.net/tag/duty-to-accomodate. | ||
'''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited insofar as they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)). | '''Other Exemptions''': Distinctions based on age are not prohibited insofar as they relate to a ''bona fide'' seniority scheme. Distinctions based on marital status, physical or mental disability, sex, or age are permitted under ''bona fide'' retirement, superannuation, or pension plans, and under ''bona fide'' insurance plans, including those which are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties (HRC, s 13(3)). | ||
